scream-of-consciousness;
"If you're trying to change minds and influence people it's probably not a good idea to say that virtually all elected Democrats are liars, but what the hell."

Friday, May 29, 2015

Coals to Newcastle

The
Circle of Jerks went blind the other day over a quote from Scott Walker
about ultrasounds prior to an abortion being “cool.” The Politico ran
it. Various left leaning journalists circulated it. It’s as if they had
an email server and they all descended at once with their stories
printed on kleenex.

The
only problem is that the story was made up. Some of the lefty
journalists refused to retract their stories even after the quote was
proven to be fabricated. It just fit their narrative too well.

Now
comes another one and this time it involvesSen.
Ted Cruz (R-TX)100%.
Cruz opposed an aid package for Hurricane Sandy. But now he is
supporting an aid package for Texas floods. The left-leaning New York
Daily News swung into attack mode and with it camethe
very same “journalists”who had attacked Scott Walker. But, like
with Walker, they got their keyboards sticky and their story completely
wrong.

Legal
Insurrection has the complete play by play.The
issue here is that no one in the Circle of Jerks has the ability to
nuance. They go straight for the release as quickly as possible and
leave out every detail imaginable that does not fit their narrative.

For
example, the Texas flooding happenedthis
week. The Hurricane Sandy aid package was formulateda
month afterthe
hurricane hit. It was not emergency spending by any stretch of the
imagination.

“The difference between Bush’s mistakes and his disappointments may
just be that he hasn’t yet taken ownership of the latter,” Massimo
Calabresi wrote in Time as he covered President George W. Bush’s final
press conference in January of 2009. Four years earlier, left-wing
journalist John Dickerson had begun a trend among the Bush White House
press corps, demanding from the President a recognition of his mistakes.

Dickerson, now like George Stephanopoulos, plays an objective Sunday
news program questioner and he, along with the circle of jerks who pose
as objective reporters of the Obama Administration, would rather blame
George W. Bush for ISIS, and not Barack Obama. But, objectively, in
2009 as George W. Bush left the White House, the surge had worked, Iraq
was stabilizing, Iran was on the sidelines, and ISIS did not exist.

When Barack Obama entered the White House, he had made a campaign
promise to get out of Iraq. On July 14, 2008, then candidate Barack
Obama wrote in the New York Times, “We can safely redeploy our combat
brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be
the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years
after the war began.” Politifact, which once attacked those who said
President Obama was lying with his claim that you could keep your
doctor only to then declare the President’s claim a lie, has never
wavered from declaring President Obama has stuck to his Iraq withdrawal
plan.

In fact, the Obama Administration was so intent on withdrawal, it is
now both documented and accepted as fact that the Obama Administration
ran from negotiating an agreement to keep American troops in Iraq.
Dexter Filkins, writing in the New Yorker’s April 28, 2014, issue,
documented our disastrous withdrawal. This Way
Comes

At
the beginning of this year, President Obama referred to ISIS as junior
varsity. Later in the year he declared them amateurs. Less than three
weeks ago the President said he had no strategy to combat ISIS. Less
than two weeks ago, President Obama referred to the non-ISIS rebels in
Syria as farmers incapable of leading the resistance against ISIS. This
past Wednesday night, President Obama’s bold new strategy is to arm the
very rebels he says are incapable of leading resistance to ISIS.

But
who are the rebels? They are people who have been in a civil war
against the Syrian government. But from the rebels have also come loyal
foot soldiers for ISIS. How does the President know the rebels will not
use our weapons and funds to fight Syria instead of ISIS? Likewise, how
does the President know some of the rebels will not take our weapons to
ISIS?

More
troubling, how does the President know these rebels will not turn on
us? And is it not possible the Syrian government and ISIS may now make
an alliance of convenience to rapidly and jointly crush the rebels? The
sad truth is Barack Obama knows the answers to none of those questions,
but wants Congress to approve sending arms and training to the rebels
anyway. More DOOM! from the polls.